2 weeks of E-board caused my 10-year account banned

@fredo599 said in #18:

@Ender88 @ronin3b

I am not sure why you want to make it something to blame Lichess for ?

I thought to be clear enough on why in my opinion, to blame is the producer for the faulty/infringing product (if proven so) and Lichess for require form end user a scrutiny that end user can't possibly do neither if he wants.

To clarify with another example:
If tomorrow some browsers (maybe not one of mainstream ones) start interacting with the site in a bizarre way, not expected or approved by Lichess, will the end user considered responsible and at fault for such a bug out to his control?

As stated, in my opinion it's absurd, and I think (from my understanding as not a lawyer) law doesn't require nothing more than due diligence from the end user.
So IMHO how you interpret ToS is not reasonable and neither technically feasible in many cases.

@Ender88 said in #16:

That's exactly my point.
ToS doesn't seem to me that provide a list or a way in which the user can know if a product is certified/compliant as would be saying "only use OEM clients".

Lichess doesn't do certifications, nor is affiliated with any of these products.
If they use the Board or Bot API, they are fine to use. If not, they are not.
How would you know if something is good or something is bad? It relates to anything you buy on the Internet. You don't. You can read the reviews, buy from a established company with a good track record to minimize the risk. Or just don't buy it.

That's my question and the why I find nonsensical to punish the end user if such user can't possibly answer this question (as I think)

Let me try with another analogy.
Lichess gave you a t-shirt (your account), it's navy blue, it's your favorite, you had it for many years, it's gotten character, you like it very very much. Lichess told you (https://lichess.org/page/fair-play) that if you are going to take care of it with some third-party stuff, you need to use only these ingredients (Board/Bot API), if you don't want it to get ruined. You then tell that you are not the chemist and don't know how to mix the things properly and then go and buy some random thing on the Internet that says that it works great with t-shirts. It turns out it had bleach in it and now your favorite t-shirt has a huge stain and a post-it note saying ruined. You then complain and demand to do something about it, the package didn't specify it contained bleach, how would you have known this?
And here we are. Whether the post-it note is there or not, the stain isn't going away. The t-shirt is ruined. Scientists confirm that time traveling back in time is impossible and James Cameron is a busy man, we cannot summon him to send the nano-robots deep into the fabric fibers to re-paint them and make a movie about it. He can film the movie, this won't fix the t-shirt though.
So however unfair and nonsensical it might sound, the only thing that one can do in this situation is to offer a new t-shirt.

@bufferunderrun said in #22:

And here we are. Whether the post-it note is there or not, the stain isn't going away. The t-shirt is ruined. Scientists confirm that time traveling back in time is impossible and James Cameron is a busy man, we cannot summon him to send the nano-robots deep into the fabric fibers to re-paint them and make a movie about it. He can film the movie, this won't fix the t-shirt though.
So however unfair and nonsensical it might sound, the only thing that one can do in this situation is to offer a new t-shirt.

The problem with this analogy is that, in this case, lichess can in fact just fix the t-shirt.

As far as I can tell the underlying issue here is not actually the API usage itself, it's that lichess appears to issue permanent bans for minor TOS violations and then uphold the ban on appeal, even if the appeal concludes that the user's actions weren't unreasonable or malicious, simply because the TOS violation did in fact take place.

If that is the policy then I assume it's because it makes bans/appeals easier to deal with, but it does appear fairly unjust looking from the outside, or at least unnecessarily harsh.

@bufferunderrun said in #22:

How would you know if something is good or something is bad? It relates to anything you buy on the Internet. You don't.

Thanks for making my point, so you acknowledge that end user can't possibly do better of what he does, and in such case he can't abide to your interpretation of ToS neither if he want.
Because as you said anything that comes (buyed) from internet can't be trusted.
You understand the nonsense in punishing someone for something he can't dealt nor prevent (is not that OP was careless or haven't done his due diligence buying).
What exactly you expect to achieve in doing ban as this one?
Which conduct you expect to deter with such ban, if you acknowledge the infringing conduct happened without the user knowledge?

Ps:
It's OT but I have also to say that I disagree with your interpretation of law.
In your opinion what's sold on internet (Amazon for example) come AS IS and can be good or bad?
Where I live exists regulations and consumer protection that are in place to guarantee the end user, and what is sold have to be legal and not harmful.
So if a producer enter in such regulated market and sold a defective product, the producer is responsible not who (unknowingly of defects) buy it.
So if everything is as stated in this thread IMHO the OP is in the clear

oh dear, oh dear ... have a nice Sunday you'all

Thanks for making my point, so you acknowledge that end user can't possibly do better of what he does, and in such case he can't abide to your interpretation of ToS neither if he want.

You can, by following https://lichess.org/page/fair-play
No one is forcing you to use a third-party board. If you choose to use one, you need to do the due diligence and research.

For those interested, general knowledge from Reddit was that you can use the German chessconnect app instead of chessnut app and it will be legitimate. I haven't made a new account here yet but I have tested it on chess.com and the app seems to be better than the official chessnut app anyway.

But as others pointed out, if for whatever reason this is still a violation, or rules change, or API change or whatever, you will lose your account with no possible appeal, if I understand what happened correctly. I don't see how the end user can vet an app.

(Maybe separate discussion, i don't even see why API matters, given it's so easy to cheat anyway, running stockfish on the side or even just an opening book. Why would I need a cheating api?)

@Denisator said in #27:

For those interested, general knowledge from Reddit was that you can use the German chessconnect app instead of chessnut app and it will be legitimate. I haven't made a new account here yet but I have tested it on chess.com and the app seems to be better than the official chessnut app anyway.

But as others pointed out, if for whatever reason this is still a violation, or rules change, or API change or whatever, you will lose your account with no possible appeal, if I understand what happened correctly. I don't see how the end user can vet an app.

(Maybe separate discussion, i don't even see why API matters, given it's so easy to cheat anyway, running stockfish on the side or even just an opening book. Why would I need a cheating api?)

IMHO because cheating with API may let you manipulate how websocket calculate lag and doing so only may trick the lag compensation algorithm in his favour.
It's just a speculation anyway.

@bufferunderrun said in #26:

Thanks for making my point, so you acknowledge that end user can't possibly do better of what he does, and in such case he can't abide to your interpretation of ToS neither if he want.

You can, by following https://lichess.org/page/fair-play
No one is forcing you to use a third-party board. If you choose to use one, you need to do the due diligence and research.

I am forced to use a third party client, called browser..
So how can I be sure to comply (today or after each update I can't control)?

But in reality is neither this practical aspect of the question that bothered me.
What bother me, as other have said, is that seem pointless to ban someone for a technical aspect on which have no control.
Anyone tomorrow could unknowingly do the same, because is not something in control of end user, so no deterrent effect is achieved, so which is the goal of this ban is beyond my comprehension.

And what I find more frustrating is that anyone involved in the process seems to understand about how the infringement happened only from a technical standpoint with no malice nor intent to harm, and most important no harm nor damage for anyone.

So as many other I asking myself why an appeal process exists if ban appears to so "algoritmics".

@Ender88 said in #28:

For those interested, general knowledge from Reddit was that you can use the German chessconnect app instead of chessnut app and it will be legitimate. I haven't made a new account here yet but I have tested it on chess.com and the app seems to be better than the official chessnut app anyway.

But as others pointed out, if for whatever reason this is still a violation, or rules change, or API change or whatever, you will lose your account with no possible appeal, if I understand what happened correctly. I don't see how the end user can vet an app.

(Maybe separate discussion, i don't even see why API matters, given it's so easy to cheat anyway, running stockfish on the side or even just an opening book. Why would I need a cheating api?)

IMHO because cheating with API may let you manipulate how websocket calculate lag and doing so only may trick the lag compensation algorithm in his favour.
It's just a speculation anyway.

That's an interesting point I didn't consider.

The whole story feels very lawyery. I don't know why it has to be going from 0 to permaban. Maybe it's a practical issue that they don't have time to waste on users because they have too many.

However I think they still have a kind of strike system though, because they "allow" me to make a new account, which I assume means this is my "first strike". Just unfortunate that doing it this way, your first strike is a dead account instead of a warning.